Abortion and the death penalty

[asherahSamaria]

I realize this question appears non relevant to people outside the US and a few other areas but if the death penalty was in force in your country you could still envisage your thoughts on it.

I'm asking this because it seems, anecdotally, that many pro lifers are really just pro-fetus as many seem to be also pro death penalty - and don't really support a social system that would help, say single mothers, in raising the child.

Happy to be proven wrong on this.

 

[Shard]

being pro-life and pro-death penalty are completely separate issues. One is against abortion and the other is supporting the proper punishments for crime. Now as to your pro-fetus statement, yeah thats totally legit.

 

[Hetta]

I realize this question appears non relevant to people outside the US and a few other areas but if the death penalty was in force in your country you could still envisage your thoughts on it.

I'm asking this because it seems, anecdotally, that many pro lifers are really just pro-fetus as many seem to be also pro death penalty - and don't really support a social system that would help, say single mothers, in raising the child.

Happy to be proven wrong on this.

You are quite correct. A life is only protected while it is in utero. Once that baby is born, most of them don't care a darn about it. If it is the child of poor people then it is dismissed as just another mouth to feed, just another drain on welfare, and people will frequently say that those poor people shouldn't even have babies. Then if it is accused of a crime, even if it didn't commit it, the cry is to send it to death row, asap, because it is worthless anyway. That is the sad and twisted process of "pro life."

 

[AvilaSurfer]

You are quite correct. A life is only protected while it is in utero. Once that baby is born, none of them care a darn about it. If it is the child of poor people then it is dismissed as just another mouth to feed, just another drain on welfare, and people will frequently say that those poor people shouldn't even have babies. Then if it is accused of a crime, even if it didn't commit it, the cry is to send it to death row, asap, because it is worthless anyway. That is the sad and twisted process of "pro life."

Just flat 100% wrong.

 

[Cearbhall]

It bugs me when people just look at these two questions philosophically without considering the facts of their practical applications. Sure, you might think that the death penalty is morally acceptable, but leaving it at that doesn't address the fact that it costs more tax dollars than imprisoning them for life, or that racial biases are clearly still at play in convictions, for example. You might think that abortion is wrong, but what about countries with high rates of child marriage? And how do you plan to ensure that women who need abortions for medical reasons are able to get through all the red tape in time?

It's important to actually learn about what these things look like in the world. So that's what bugs me about statements like this one:

One is against abortion and the other is supporting the proper punishments for crime.

These issues just aren't that simple.

 

[Winken]

And how do you plan to ensure that women who need abortions for medical reasons are able to get through all the red tape in time?

What medical reasons?

What red tape?

 

[Winken]

@Hetta

Christian-seeker. Define that, please. Are you seeking Christians? Seeking understanding?

Thanks...

 

[Cearbhall]

What medical reasons?

Young age. Septicemia. Pre-eclampsia is a big one. Ectopic pregnancy (I've seen a few pro-life individuals claim that there's always a chance it could solve itself, and that abortion should therefore be denied). Then there are conditions that are independent of the pregnancy but may be even more dangerous to the mother when combined with pregnancy, such as cancer and auto-immune disorders.

What red tape?

Hypothetically, if abortion were legal only to save the life of the mother, any woman who needed this would have to prove that her odds of survival are low enough to justify the procedure. The problem is that she could die in the meantime, which is what happened to Savita Halappanavar. It's absurd to purposely wait for someone to get sicker.

 

[Winken]

Young age. Septicemia. Pre-eclampsia is a big one. Ectopic pregnancy (I've seen a few pro-life individuals claim that there's always a chance it could solve itself, and that abortion should therefore be denied). Then there are conditions that are independent of the pregnancy but may be even more dangerous to the mother when combined with pregnancy, such as cancer and auto-immune disorders.

0.006% in a British study, 0.01% in a USA study.

Hypothetically, if abortion were legal only to save the life of the mother, any woman who needed this would have to prove that her odds of survival are low enough to justify the procedure. The problem is that she could die in the meantime, which is what happened to Savita Halappanavar. It's absurd to purposely wait for someone to get sicker.

In the meantime, 70,000,000 babies have been aborted, statistically, in the USA. Around the world, the total approaches one billion. Is it a problem that an innocent child not "could" die, but does die, from conception right on through 9 months, and as recently revealed, even after live birth?

 

[Cearbhall]

0.006% in a British study, 0.01% in a USA study.

And? If it's more than zero, then there needs to be a way to guarantee that these women can acquire the procedure that they need.

Is it a problem that an innocent child not "could" die, but does die, from conception right on through 9 months, and as recently revealed, even after live birth?

Oh, I'm not one who says that "life of the mother" makes all the difference. I'm just plain pro-choice.

 

[Chriliman]

I realize this question appears non relevant to people outside the US and a few other areas but if the death penalty was in force in your country you could still envisage your thoughts on it.

I'm asking this because it seems, anecdotally, that many pro lifers are really just pro-fetus as many seem to be also pro death penalty - and don't really support a social system that would help, say single mothers, in raising the child.

Happy to be proven wrong on this.

You're asking the wrong question. You should be asking why women are getting pregnant with unwanted babies? As soon as you figure that out you can then solve the problem of abortion and unwanted babies that get neglected and then cause problems later on in society and ultimately get the death penalty for their crimes. Look at the source of the problem first not the result.

However, as soon as you figure out the problem behind why women get pregnant with unwanted babies you'll have a new problem that came before that problem that you'll have to look at the source of and so on and so forth. Don't stop trying to solve problems though because eventually you'll get the real source of all problems, there you'll find the truth

 

[Winken]

And? If it's more than zero, then there needs to be a way to guarantee that these women can acquire the procedure that they need.

Oh, I'm not one who says that "life of the mother" makes all the difference. I'm just plain pro-choice.

Young age, statistically insignificant
Septicemie, less than 1%. Prevented by personal hygiene
Pre-eclampsia, less that 2%

Individual responsibility? Medical services are readily available.

 

[Cearbhall]

Young age, statistically insignificant
Septicemie, less than 1%. Prevented by personal hygiene
Pre-eclampsia, less that 2%

Sources and context please. What cut-off are you using for young age, and what statistics? Less than 1% and 2% of what? All pregnant women? And you didn't address ectopic pregnancy or pre-existing conditions.

 

[Winken]

I'm asking this because it seems, anecdotally, that many pro lifers are really just pro-fetus as many seem to be also pro death penalty - and don't really support a social system that would help, say single mothers, in raising the child.

Happy to be proven wrong on this.

Pro-fetus? That's pro-life. Social system? Forty-six percent (46%) of Americans are on welfare, in Section 8 housing, all supported by the 54% who are not. Single mothers? With the exception of rural areas, physical, mental, emotional and financial support are provided across the USA. At taxpayer expense.

Point the finger at deadbeat dads and those who abandon their wives and girlfriends. Who comes along to "support" the single mother? Another deadbeat "dad" who is a child-abandoner. And the beat goes on.

How do we fix it? __________________________________.

 

[Hetta]

@Hetta

Christian-seeker. Define that, please. Are you seeking Christians? Seeking understanding?

Thanks...

It's defined by CF.

 

[Cearbhall]

Pro-fetus? That's pro-life.

Hardly. Homo sapiens babies aren't self-sufficient. Our big heads made sure of that...

 

[Winken]

Sources and context please. What cut-off are you using for young age, and what statistics? Less than 1% and 2% of what? All pregnant women? And you didn't address ectopic pregnancy or pre-existing conditions.

ectoptic? Less than 2%. Sorry I missed that one.

Less that 1% of pregnancies.
Less than 2% of pregnancies.

Pre-existing conditions? Which ones? I'll check it out for you.

 

[Cearbhall]

ectoptic? Less than 2%. Sorry I missed that one.

Less that 1% of pregnancies.
Less than 2% of pregnancies.

In 2014, there were nearly 4 million births in the United States. Of course, that excludes the women who actually died of pre-eclampsia, ectopic pregnancies, and other conditions before the pregnancy was far enough along to result in a birth, but let's stick with the conservative estimate of 4 million. 1% of that is 40,000. 2% is 80,000, obviously. Does that not seem like something for which we should have a protocol? Would you call that statistically insignificant?

I'm just confused about how many women have to be in mortal peril before you think that a "life of the mother" exception is worth adding to your beliefs.

 

[Winken]

It's defined by CF.

Thanks!

 

[Winken]

In 2014, there were nearly 4 million births in the United States. Of course, that excludes the women who actually died of pre-eclampsia, ectopic pregnancies, and other conditions before the pregnancy was far enough along to result in a birth, but let's stick with the conservative estimate of 4 million. 1% of that is 40,000. 2% is 80,000, obviously. Does that not seem like something for which we should have a protocol? Would you call that statistically insignificant?

I'm just confused about how many women have to be in mortal peril before you think that a "life of the mother" exception is worth adding to your beliefs.

Mortal peril? Less than 1 to 2% have the aforementioned conditions. 40,000 to 80,000 aren't dying.